Talk:Ely Hall

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ely Hall/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: 凰兰时罗 (talk · contribs) 16:46, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	I have a couple of suggestions here: I think that the lead section should be enlarged. Split the large paragraph into two smaller ones by adding a couple of sentences, perhaps? This would also better reflect the article's layout... I would split the history section into subsection for clarity. This is optional, as there are no specific guidelines here, but I think that for readers' benefit, the lengthy money-raising part should be made separate from the actual construction.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	I have some suggestions here: I think that the history section lacks at least a little bit of broader context. Interestingly, the article never mentions that at the time of the construction, Vassar was a female only college. (Hence the gymnasium was a single gender facility.) Enrollment figures of the day would also be helpful. I would incorporate more sources to resolve some ambiguities with dates and numbers. For example, according to Poughkeepsie Daily Eagle: The actual cost by October 1889 (prior to the additional $2500) was $22,000. (Oct 9, 1889, page 30) The building opened on November 23, 1889 (Nov 25, 1889, page 5) The college president, James Taylor was also credited with the gymnasium's construction (e.g. Dec 20, 1916, page 1)
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	These are my comments after the first reading. For now, my overall suggestion is to fix/discuss the suggestions above. However, please don't take my comments as condescending instructions set in stone — I'm learning this process myself. So, I am open to discussion, and I am very appreciative to the great work that you've already put into this article. Thank you for your great work and efforts! 凰兰时罗 (talk) 21:26, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for the kind review, 凰兰时罗! I'll look into this within the week I hope and let you know as I complete things. Kudos for finding more sources! All the best, BobAmnertiopsis∴_ChatMe! 06:36, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• Hi, 凰兰时罗. I've made a go at the 1b concerns you had and a few of the 3a concerns. My next step is to try and incorporate some of the Poughkeepsie Daily Eagle references you mentioned. Could you point me to the link where you found these sources so I can take a look at them and add them as appropriate? Thanks so much! Best, BobAmnertiopsis∴_ChatMe! 21:16, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Bobamnertiopsis:

Unfortunately, this is not as easy as providing a link. Are you affiliated with Vassar or, perhaps, have access to their library? (If not, I'll work to provide you with images of particular pages, but I'm not sure how this is done in Wikipedia. The pages are not in copyright, but uploading random pages to Commons seems silly...). 凰兰时罗 (talk) 21:58, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Hey, @凰兰时罗: I've used the "Email this user" tool to send you an email. You can reply to that email with any images you think are relevant. (And may I just say I'm impressed and confused that you managed to find offline newspaper sources about this random building at an upstate New York college! How in the world did you manage that??) All my best, BobAmnertiopsis∴_ChatMe! 23:17, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

@Bobamnertiopsis: You got it. I wasn't implying that these were offline sources—I accessed them through restricted-access databases. I'm positive, that these same sources are available at Vassar library, so I initially assumed that you could use their facilities with indexes and searches to get even more information than I got. Since you don't have access, I just emailed you four most relevant pages that I located. It could be that these same newspapers are freely available somewhere else, but I never checked. Glad I could help, 凰兰时罗 (talk) 02:42, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

@凰兰时罗: Thanks, I just received the files. I used to have access to Vassar databases but no longer so this is very helpful. I'll look at adding them to the article tomorrow. Thanks so much! BobAmnertiopsis∴_ChatMe! 02:50, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

@凰兰时罗: Those were great articles, thanks! I've added info in from them. I've addressed everything you mentioned above except enrollment figures, which are a little sporadic and which I don't have any of for the late 1880s (I recall seeing them somewhere for the late 1890s but not for the 1880s sadly). Is there anything else I can do to improve this article? Thanks for all your help! BobAmnertiopsis∴_ChatMe! 20:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

@Bobamnertiopsis: At some point you might want to incorporate more info from those pages and find those enrollment figures, as a Wikipedia article is never ever finished :). However, this is beyond GA criteria. Thank you for your efforts, I think the article satisfies GA criteria. 凰兰时罗 (talk) 21:26, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

@凰兰时罗: And thank you so much for yours! This has been one of the nicest GA reviews I've ever been a part of! BobAmnertiopsis∴_ChatMe! 21:40, 9 January 2017 (UTC)